Idaho law now shields parents who cite religious objections to medical treatment from criminal charges when their children die. But historical documents and newspaper archives show that for nearly a century—from the 1880s through the early 1970s—the state took a different approach, prosecuting parents who chose prayer over medicine for critically ill children.
The shift came during a comprehensive rewrite of Idaho's criminal code in 1971, when legislators added language protecting those who choose "treatment by prayer or spiritual means alone" for their children. A follow-up law in 1972 expanded that protection to other charges. The change coincided with broader national movements around religious liberty and federal child welfare policy.
What the Left Is Saying
Child safety advocates and medical professionals argue that Idaho's exemption puts children's lives at unnecessary risk. From 2015 to 2025, members of the Followers of Christ sect in Idaho experienced 15 preventable child deaths, according to ProPublica reporting. Pediatric organizations have long maintained that faith-healing exemptions create legal gaps that allow children to die from treatable conditions.
Oregon State Senator Kim Thomsen, who championed that state's 2011 repeal of its faith-healing exemption, said at the time: "We don't allow parents to starve their children or deny them education because of religious beliefs. Medicine should be no different." The American Academy of Pediatrics has repeatedly called on states to eliminate religious exemptions from child neglect laws.
Some legal scholars argue that constitutional protections for religious freedom do not extend to decisions that result in a child's death. "The state's interest in protecting children from serious harm is compelling," wrote Professor Elizabeth Clark of the University of Idaho College of Law. "Courts have consistently recognized this interest even when parents claim religious objections."
What the Right Is Saying
Religious freedom advocates and supporters of parental rights argue that Idaho's law reflects legitimate protections for sincere religious exercise. The First Amendment prohibits government from favoring one religion over another or interfering with free exercise, they contend.
Idaho State Senator Scott Herndon, who has backed measures supporting faith-based approaches to health care, said in a statement: "Idaho has a long tradition of respecting the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children consistent with their deeply held beliefs. We will continue to defend those constitutional protections."
The Idaho Family Policy Center, which advocates for religious liberty issues, argues that criminalizing parents for following their faith would create dangerous precedents. "Once we start picking and choosing which sincere religious practices are acceptable to the state, no one's faith is truly free," the organization said in a position paper.
Some constitutional scholars disagree with child safety advocates' interpretation. Professor Michael Davidson of BYU-Idaho wrote: "The Free Exercise Clause provides robust protection for religious practices that do not harm third parties—and some courts have extended this to family decisions about medical care."
What the Numbers Show
Historical statutes show Idaho's position on faith healing has changed significantly over time. The 1887 Idaho Territory statutes made it a misdemeanor for parents to "omit, without lawful excuse, to furnish necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical attendance" for children—with no spiritual belief exception. The 1890 state constitution explicitly limited religious freedom protections, stating religion would not excuse practices "inconsistent with morality or the peace or safety of the state."
According to ProPublica's reporting, there were at least two documented prosecutions under those laws involving Followers of Christ members in the early-to-mid 20th century. In one case from 1915, Lurid P. Annis was arrested on a misdemeanor charge after his daughter Pearl died from complications that today would be described as septic shock from a bowel blockage.
By contrast, Idaho Code § 16-1603 now explicitly states the state cannot bring endangerment charges against parents who choose "treatment by prayer or spiritual means alone." Nationally, 44 states had some form of faith-healing exemption as of 2022, according to the Child Welfare League of America. That number has declined from a peak following the 1974 federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act.
The Followers of Christ sect arrived in Idaho in 1899 and maintains active congregations in the state today. The 15 preventable child deaths documented by ProPublica between 2015 and 2025 represent only confirmed cases—the actual number may be higher, as the exemption limits the state's ability to investigate.
The Bottom Line
Idaho's approach to faith-healing exemptions reflects a tension between two legitimate state interests: protecting children from preventable death and respecting religious free exercise. Historical records show this balance has shifted significantly over time—from strict enforcement of child neglect laws through most of the 20th century, to broad protections for faith-based medical decisions starting in 1971.
The federal government played a role in that shift. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 offered states grants to improve child welfare systems—but required them to have faith-healing exemptions to qualify. Most states complied, though subsequent legislative changes at both state and federal levels have eroded those requirements over time.
What comes next may depend on the courts. Similar cases in other states have reached appellate judges who must weigh parental religious rights against children's right to life-saving medical care. Idaho advocates on both sides say they are watching for test cases that could clarify the law's boundaries.